The Adventures of Tintin

[Carmine Falcone]

Agreed.

I think people were definitely jumping the gun when they were talking about this having better effects than Avatar. It's better than Zemeckis's films with CGI but not a huge difference.

But, they still have a year (approximately) to work on the effects.

 

[batsfan81]

Looks pretty cool. I used to watch this when I was younger. I think it came on HBO.

 

[matrix_ghost]

Although i was hoping for more CG realism , i think this is exactly what Spielberg and co. had been planning all along.

"From our earliest conversations, Steven and I were intrigued about the potential of developing this performance capture technique even further, to apply a real actor's performance to computer generated versions of Herge's vast cast of characters," said Peter Jackson. "For well over a year now, artists at Weta have been quietly testing the theory of creating life-like reproductions of Tintin, Captain Haddock, Professor Calculus and many of the other core cast - faithfully replicating Herge's original designs, but not rendering them as cartoons, or the familiar looking computer animated characters - instead we're making them look photo realistic, the fibers of their clothing, the pores of their skin and each individual hair. They look exactly like real people - but real Herge people!"

PLus i think this confirms the budget being 135 million.
When Avatar was first announced the budget was 195 million. That grew to the "official" number of 237 million.

Whatever the real number is , based on those pics , i think we can all draw the conclusion that Tin Tin does cost 135 million.
Which also fits in SPielberg's way of making movies. With the exception of Indy 4 , Spielberg always tries to make his movies for less then 150 million.

 

[Figs]

But, they still have a year (approximately) to work on the effects.

Did not know that. For some reason I thought this was a 2011 release but if they have that much time to work on effects then it should look pretty damn good.

 

[dark_b]

1 year is not a lot of time for a movie where every frame has CGI humans and CGI enviorments.

i think in januar 2011 they will not change anymore shots. what is finished will be finished IMO.

 

[terry78]

Did not know that. For some reason I thought this was a 2011 release but if they have that much time to work on effects then it should look pretty damn good.

Dec. 2011, yeah.

 

[Octoberist]

The main reason why I look forward to Tintin is that it kinda harkens back to Indiana Jones. Despite the CGI polish, it might be fairly old school.

 

[Carmine Falcone]

Exactly, that's why I think Spielberg is perfect for this. Also, the last Indy movie kind of reminded me of the Tintin comic ''Flight 714''

 

[Gunga Diner]

Kinda makes you wish somebody super-talented had applied this kind of technique to Will Eisner's Spirit comics.

 

[Secret Fawful]

Well the amount of distaste toward the designs is exactly what I expected it to be, so I'm not disappointed on that front. I love the designs, as and in spite of being a Tintin fan. The scenes shown look very realistic to me, but I do wish they had more of the stylized Spielberg pallette from the 80s going on.

What eases my worries the most about the film is pretty much this quote. "But at the same time the movie is a hell of an adventure." - Spielberg. Somebody on the front page said "why should I see this movie?" Should anyone need any more reason? I don't care if it's blindly following something, this movie is the movie that will prove if Spielberg can still do adventure films (I don't consider Indy 4 final proof, but more the vehicle that meant Spielberg needed to prove the current him can do it well) and if he can do an adventure film outside of Indiana Jones without it just being Indiana Jones all over again (which it won't be as it's Tintin). And he's doing an adventure film without George Lucas; so if he screws this up there is no excuse anymore. If he does things right, which I think he will, then everyone will just go back to saying "it was all George's fault".

This is still the same technology used for Avatar (at least if I read right), so I think full motion, as others have said, will be what makes it really look fantastic. I can't wait for a trailer of some sort.

 

[Sawyer]

I think it looks great. I love that the motion capture isn't trying to look very photoreal but more in line with the source material. Seeing it in motion will be interesting.

 

[obin_gam]

Whats the point of cgi:ing the movie if they are not making the characters look like they look in the comics?

Not one of those pics are remarkly similar to what they look like in the comics and wasnt that THE WHOLE FRIGGIN POINT!?

case in point:
Cap. Haddock:

Not Cap. Haddock

nose is all wrong and effs up the overall look.

 

[Electrofarce]

This will look pretty good CGI wise. Cartoony, yet extremely photo-real in both pics. I feel this will look tons better than a Zemeckis film, especially after watching this monstrosity: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6YAOYs3ObzI

 

[dark_b]

you dont think they look like in the comics?

 

[Secret Fawful]

Cap. Haddock:

Not Cap. Haddock

Whoa! You're right! They look exactly the same. Thanks for demonstrating how alike they look.

The other shot in the sea looks like it leaped straight from Herge's comics.

I would say the only problem I see at all in this shot is that Haddock looks a bit thin. Other than that, it's exact.

 

[obin_gam]

you dont think they look like in the comics?

i cant see the resemblance anyways look at the faces.

tintin:

not tintin:

 

[obin_gam]

Whoa! You're right! They look exactly the same. Thanks for demonstrating how alike they look. The other shot in the sea looks like it leaped straight from Herge's comics.

eh, no. look at the nose and how its pointing. cartoon nose points slightly up, zemeckis-influenced points down.

 

[Sawyer]

Christ...

 

[Octoberist]

Whats the point of cgi:ing the movie if they are not making the characters look like they look in the comics?

Not one of those pics are remarkly similar to what they look like in the comics and wasnt that THE WHOLE FRIGGIN POINT!?

case in point:
Cap. Haddock:

Not Cap. Haddock

nose is all wrong and effs up the overall look.

Wow. This is so nerdy. even for me.

 

[Secret Fawful]

eh, no. look at the nose and how its pointing. cartoon nose points slightly up, zemeckis-influenced points down.

So you're saying you want it to look like this?

Mmm, I mean it wouldn't look terrible, but I prefer what they've actually done with it.

 

[obin_gam]

i'm 50/50 on that... hehe, i'm just saying Why they havent just gone full out when that was the whole reason they did it the zemeckis way in the first place?

Spoiler

and yes, I have actually nothing else to do right now

 

[Octoberist]

We're venturing into the category of nerdom who complains about 'so and so' being the left handed in the movie but right handed in the comics/books.

 

[Secret Fawful]

i'm 50/50 on that... hehe, i'm just saying Why they havent just gone full out when that was the whole reason they did it the zemeckis way in the first place?

Spoiler

and yes, I have actually nothing else to do right now

I always saw it like this. Tintin and the characters in his world are so unique. I don't know of any other artists who have a style like Herge (though I could be wrong). To try to cast actors to play these characters would detract from it. Say Spielberg was making it live action. Now say, Daniel Craig was cast to play Haddock, hypothetically, or someone else. No matter how well acted it was, you will still see Daniel Craig on the screen, not Haddock. Because the original Haddock is so unique. True the argument I'm using right now could be used for any adaption, but honestly I don't know of any actors in this day and age who are tailor made for these characters like say, Christopher Reeves was for Superman. But Spielberg is still trying to make it like a live-action film would be made, if you could cast Haddock as Haddock and Tintin as Tintin. In a way, he is making the truest-to-Herge and his comics "live action" adaption he possibly can.

EDIT: Oh and you know what else? I look at that picture of Tintin and Haddock on the boat with the plane flying in while listening to the Raider's March, and you have no idea how much more beautiful it looks because I can only imagine what the score will be like. Paramount really screwed up by letting this one slip through their hands.

 

[Octoberist]

I don't mind motion captured movies as long as it's appropriate and works fine.

I think Tintin is designed for CGI where as Beowulf is not. Why? Because the human characters are just human where as Tintin takes place in a more surreal or cartoony, timeless universe.

 

[obin_gam]

I always saw it like this. Tintin and the characters in his world are so unique. I don't know of any other artists who have a style like Herge (though I could be wrong). To try to cast actors to play these characters would detract from it. Say Spielberg was making it live action. Now say, Daniel Craig was cast to play Haddock, hypothetically, or someone else. No matter how well acted it was, you will still see Daniel Craig on the screen, not Haddock. Because the original Haddock is so unique. True the argument I'm using right now could be used for any adaption, but honestly I don't know of any actors in this day and age who are tailor made for these characters like say, Christopher Reeves was for Superman. But Spielberg is still trying to make it like a live-action film would be made, if you could cast Haddock as Haddock and Tintin as Tintin. In a way, he is making the truest-to-Herge and his comics "live action" adaption he possibly can.

I see what youre saying, but I'm jsut annoyed at the details. This is like right in the middle for no reason than to just be in the middle. The spectrum I'm looking at is like this:

Live action end of the spectrum (Casting actors that sort of resembles the charactersand be in some makup but still have the actors own look)

This Neither looking like the actor thats playing the part OR looking like the comic book original... instead just some horrid mutation...)

Completly CGI (Doing a faithful cgi version of the comic book characters look)

I mean, they got THIS *thumb and pinky* close and just missed it. Why? Is my question.
I know its nitpicking, but it wouldnt be SHH without nerdy nitpicking now would it